DEVELOPING A PROTOCOL FOR THE CONVERSION OF RANK-BASED TAXON NAMES TO PHYLOGENETICALLY DEFINED CLADE NAMES, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY TURTLES

Transcription

1 J. Paleont., 78(5), 2004, pp Copyright 2004, The Paleontological Society /04/ $03.00 DEVELOPING A PROTOCOL FOR THE CONVERSION OF RANK-BASED TAXON NAMES TO PHYLOGENETICALLY DEFINED CLADE NAMES, AS EXEMPLIFIED BY TURTLES WALTER G. JOYCE, 1 JAMES F. PARHAM, 2 AND JACQUES ARMAND GAUTHIER 1 1 Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, 210 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, walter.joyce@yale.edu, jacques.gauthier@yale.edu and 2 Museum of Paleontology, University of California at Berkeley, 1101 VLSB, Berkeley 94720, parham@socrates.berkeley.edu ABSTRACT We present a rank-free phylogenetic nomenclature for 25 well-established ancient clades of living turtles. This is the first attempt to document fully the nomenclatural history of a clade with the intent of proposing a coherent nomenclatural system to replace the traditional rank-based nomenclature. Because of the imperative to retain connectivity to the literature for information retrieval, due consideration is given to balancing the desire to develop a consistent system against the desire to conserve traditional associations between names, taxa (i.e., clades), and characters. Novel issues and problems that emerged during this review include: the unclear name/clade association of traditional names; the creation of synonymy lists from which to choose a name; difficulties associated with selecting a single criterion for choosing among multiple subjectively synonymous names; identifying authorship for a converted traditional name; and the potential loss of nomenclatural information due to functional homonyms. This work may provide a useful road map to those intent on converting their traditional rank-based nomenclatures to explicitly phylogenetic nomenclatures under the precepts of the PhyloCode. T HE INTRODUCTION GENERAL principles of phylogenetic nomenclature embodied in the draft PhyloCode (PhyloCode, 2003) were outlined more than a decade ago (de Queiroz, 1988; de Queiroz and Donoghue, 1988; de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1990), and their implications have inspired a lively debate among practitioners of this type of nomenclature (e.g., de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992, 1994; Rowe and Gauthier, 1992; Bryant, 1994; de Queiroz, 1994; Schander and Thollesson, 1995; Chiappe, 1996; Holtz, 1996; Lee, 1996; Lee and Spencer, 1997; Sereno, 1998, 1999; Padian et al., 1999; Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001; Bryant and Cantino, 2002). We apply those principles in proposing a comprehensive phylogenetic nomenclature for the 50 primary clades of turtles that we feel sure many zoologists will want to talk about. Our stated purpose is not to provide an overview or critique of the differences between both nomenclatural systems, but rather to propose a coherent, rank-free nomenclature to replace the current rank-based nomenclature governed (implicitly or explicitly) by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999). Our proposed nomenclature is incomplete, thanks in no small part to the fact that knowledge of turtle phylogeny is still growing. However, there are at least three additional reasons for this shortcoming. First, and perhaps most importantly, there are unresolved questions about the conversion of Linnaean binomials in which species names are unique but not constant due to changing generic assignments into a nomenclatural system in which all genealogical entities of interest, be they species or clades (sensu Phylo- Code, 2003, Glossary), have their own unchanging names (Cantino et al., 1999). A second problem is that there is no widely accepted protocol for associating a particular node-, stem-, or apomorphy-based clade with one among a realm of possible candidate names from the traditional taxonomic literature (e.g., Sereno, 1998, 1999). This is largely because the limits of the circumscription of many traditional rank-based taxa are often fuzzy, making it difficult to construct a coherent argument that any given taxon name governed (explicitly or implicitly) by the ICZN must objectively refer to a particular clade as well (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001; see below). Finally, any nomenclatural history necessitates a laborious review of an old and rare scientific literature that is often difficult to find. We consequently focus our efforts toward converting the names associated with the most widely studied, uncontroversial, long-recognized phylogenetic units, 989 which include extant species, and intentionally leave the conversion of currently ill-supported clades, or clades that contain fossils only, to subsequent reviewers. Among extant vertebrates, turtles are an ideal clade to lead the transition from a rank-based nomenclatural system (ICZN, 1999) to a rank-free nomenclatural system that is based on phylogenetically defined clade names (PhyloCode, 2003). With fewer than 300 living species, turtles are manageable, yet diverse enough, with a long and complex history of ideas about phylogeny and nomenclature, to raise novel questions regarding the procedures of nomenclatural transition as proposed in the PhyloCode (2003). Given the lack of transitional protocols, a primary goal of this paper is to identify difficulties that may be associated with the systematic conversion of names, explore promising solutions, and develop a protocol that allows the efficient mass conversion of names from one system to the other while maintaining optimal connection to their current meaning (i.e., their currently accepted circumscriptions). On this basis, we propose an internally consistent phylogenetic nomenclature for all well-accepted crown clades of extant turtles, and their stem counterparts, with the ultimate goal of nomenclatural precision, stability, and universality. Among the plethora of namable clades, this contribution focuses on naming the crowns and panstems of the well-known clades of turtles (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001). Crown clades are clades delimited by living representatives (e.g., the clade that originates from the last common ancestor of all living turtles). In contrast, panstem clades are clades that include crowns, but are also specified by the next living representatives from outside of those crowns (e.g., the clade that contains living turtles plus all organisms more closely related to living turtles than to any other living organism). This emphasis on naming clades delimited by extant specifiers does not imply that fossils are somehow less deserving of our attention or that this article is not relevant to paleontologists. Quite to the contrary, we predict that this contribution will be of particular interest to paleontologists. This is because crown and panstem clades are precisely those clades about which neontologists and paleontologists so often want to communicate. At a time when morphological data from stem groups and age estimates of crown clades are arguably the most important contributions that paleontologists make to systematic biology, it is consequently of singular importance for all paleontologists to appreciate the differences among stem-, node-, and

2 990 JOURNAL OF PALEONTOLOGY, V. 78, NO. 5, 2004 apomorphy-based clade names in order to be able to communicate precisely their findings to their neontological colleagues using a nomenclatural system shared by both communities. Abbreviations and notes. Abbreviations used include: NCN for New Clade Name; CCN for Converted Clade Name; and orig. to denote original taxonomic reference. We provide full citations for the names of specifier species (s. PhyloCode, 2003, Article 11.1) used in the main text. For the citations of all other species names listed in the Appendices, please refer to King and Burke (1989) or Iverson (1992). Throughout the text, double quotes are used when citing literally. In contrast, single quotes are used to highlight a particular word, not its meaning. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was undertaken to reconstruct the history of the systematics, taxonomy, and nomenclature of fossil and Recent turtles, with an emphasis on understanding the nomenclatural history of the major crown clades (i.e., clades delimited by extant species). A number of previously published reviews proved particularly useful starting points, such as Boulenger (1889), Siebenrock (1909), Hunt (1958), Kuhn (1961, 1967), Gaffney (1984), Bour and Dubois (1985, 1986), and King and Burke (1989). Special emphasis was placed on reading all primary literature, and not relying on secondary references, to avoid propagating incorrectly cited ideas about turtle taxa as governed by the ICZN (1999) and their associated circumscriptions and names. All books and articles used herein were searched for turtle-related ICZN-taxon names as well as their differentiating characters ( differentia) and proposed composition ( usages) with the aim of creating synonymy lists, that is, lists of names that apply to (arguably) comparable circumscriptions (non s. ICZN, 1999 and PhyloCode, 2003; see below). Following the current rules of the ICZN (1999), we consider only formal Latin names and ignore all literature using vernacular English, French, German, or Italian terms, such as Chéloniens (Brongniart, 1800a, 1800b) or Testuggini (Bonaparte, 1836b). This literature review is the basis against which we test ideas regarding current and past nomenclatural practices. It also serves as the foundation for the transitional protocols that we develop and the phylogenetic nomenclature of turtles that we propose. As recommended by the PhyloCode (2003, Recommendation 6.1B), all clade names are distinguished from taxon names governed by the ICZN (1999), in this case by the use of italics (e.g., Testudines vs. Testudines). This approach may be considered problematic for genus and species names, because these are usually italicized following the recommendations of the ICZN (1999, B6). However, given that the PhyloCode (2003, Article 1) does not regulate species names and that isolated genus names are not used throughout the text, confusion is avoided for the moment. To further distinguish clade names from higher-ranked names as governed by the ICZN, we also italicize all grammatical derivatives of formal clade names (e.g., all cryptodiran turtles possess a processus trochlearis oticum, or kinosternoids are cryptodires ). Throughout the text we use traditional binomials as ruled by the ICZN (1999), but include their original generic assignments in parentheses [i.e., Chelonia (orig. Testudo) mydas] when using them as internal specifiers in clade name definitions. DISCUSSION What is a taxon?. Significant miscommunications can quickly arise between followers of the ICZN and PhyloCode due to radically different definitions of taxon. According to the ICZN (1999, Glossary), a taxon, herein referred to as an ICZN-taxon, is a category of classification (such as a family or genus) that is typified by a single species (type species). Names are assigned to ICZN-taxa based on simple, rank-associated rules that are governed by the ICZN. For instance, it is hypothetically possible to unite all known turtles into a single family with the type species Testudo graeca. The correct name for this ICZN-taxon is Testudinidae. However, it is also possible to unite terrestrial tortoises only into a family with the type species Testudo graeca, and the correct name for this ICZN-taxon remains Testudinidae. According to the ICZN (1999, Article 23.3), both ICZN-taxa are synonymous, because they have the same rank and contain the same type species, but they differ markedly in their assigned or circumscribed content or composition. Following the PhyloCode (2003, Article 1), taxa, herein referred to as phylo-taxa, are species or clades. Names are tied to clades using phylogenetic definitions. To avoid nomenclatural confusion, the PhyloCode was drafted with the intention of governing this process. Continuing with the example above, a phylotaxon Testudinidae that contains all turtles cannot be considered synonymous with a phylo-taxon Testudinidae that contains only terrestrial tortoises, because these phylo-taxa differ in their actual composition as they derive from different most-recent common ancestors (PhyloCode, Article 14). Although it is our intention to propose a nomenclature of turtles following the rules of the PhyloCode (1999), we will distinguish both meanings of the word taxon throughout the text using prefixes (i.e., ICZN-taxon vs. phylo-taxon) to avoid confusion. Information retrieval. As many will agree, one of the major purposes of nomenclature is the efficient storage and retrieval of information, although there may be considerable disagreement about exactly what information is stored, and whether or not any of it is actually retrievable (e.g., de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992; Mayr and Bock, 2002). A flow chart illustrates the differences between phylo-taxonomy and nomenclature as to be administered by the PhyloCode and ICZN-taxonomy and nomenclature as governed by the ICZN (Fig. 1). According to the methods advocated by the PhyloCode, authors attach names to clades by carefully circumscribing the clade to which the name is assigned by explicit reference to common ancestry. This system has three advantages. First, ideas regarding composition or apomorphies of a phylotaxon can be precisely retrieved as originally conceived by the author by applying the appropriate name definition to a given phylogenetic hypothesis. Second, it is possible to assess the phylo-taxonomic status of all species unknown to the original author, thus alleviating the need to continually alter the meaning of names over time because of inevitable changes in our knowledge of biodiversity. Finally, although no information can be retrieved from the name itself, cognitive efficiency ( cognitive economy of Rosch, 1978) will be better served over time, because any given name will always refer to the same ancestor regardless of changing ideas about composition ( circumscription). In traditional rank-based taxonomy, authors conceive increasingly inclusive classes of organisms that are united by defining characteristics (differentia), such as synapomorphies and/or symplesiomorphies. These classes of organisms are then assigned a categorical rank and a type species or specimen, thus becoming ICZN-taxa. Finally, each ICZN-taxon is given a diagnosis that circumscribes its composition by reference to its differentia, and, using the rules of the ICZN (1999), is assigned a certain name based on its rank and type species or specimen. Naturally, given that the ICZN (1999) does not govern taxonomic practice per se for the most part, this description of taxonomic practice should be understood as a simplification, not an authoritative account of traditional taxonomic practice. The emphasis on rank allows any subsequent taxonomist to retrieve efficiently the rank of an ICZN-taxon and its relative placement within any ICZN-taxonomic system (at least for some levels in the taxonomic hierarchy). Names of the family group

3 JOYCE ET AL. DEVELOPING A PROTOCOL FOR THE CONVERSION OF TAXON NAMES 991 FIGURE 1 Flow chart illustrating differences between traditional taxonomy as governed by the ICZN and phylogenetic taxonomy as to be governed by the PhyloCode in the conception and naming of groups and the retrieval of information regarding groups from their names. also efficiently refer to their type genus (ICZN, 1999, Articles 25 34); the type species, however, can only be retrieved after consulting the relevant literature (e.g., King and Burke, 1989, for turtles). Using the associated differentia, systematists are able to approximate the limits of the circumscription of an ICZN-taxon, but they will typically not be able to do so with precision. Furthermore, because names are not tied to groups of organisms, but rather to ranks and type species, any ICZN-taxon name can refer to a large number of different groups (as long as they include the type), thus impeding cognitive efficiency. Because it is our intention to document the history of names associated with groups of turtles, most of the sections below are devoted to establishing methods that allow approximation of the groups to which traditional taxon names might refer. Establishing synonymy. One of the main objectives of this paper is to provide complete lists of all names that have been associated with any given set of species or apomorphies of turtles in order to document the history of name association and to guide the choice of crown clade names. We consider names that apply to the same group of organisms synonymous. This usage of the word synonymy contrasts that of the ICZN (1999, Article 23.3), where two names are considered synonymous only when they refer to ICZN-taxa of equal rank and with the same type species (see above). This usage also differs somewhat from that of the PhyloCode (2003, Article 14) where two names are considered synonymous only when they refer to the same phylo-taxa (i.e., clades), because not all historical groupings considered herein are necessarily clades. Assessing the group of organisms to which a name refers is difficult in traditional taxonomy (see above). This is because the limits of the circumscription of an ICZN-taxon can only be approximated using the species and diagnostic characters listed by the author (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001). Only in very few cases, especially in pre Darwinian times, did authors clarify how they conceptualized the circumscription of their ICZN-taxa, and how their proposed names were to be tied to those circumscriptions, thus leaving this decision to the inclinations of individual reviewers. All synonymies of circumscriptions of traditional taxon names, consequently, are based on approximations and must be considered subjective. For instance, Linnaeus (1758) made no explicit statement as to the nature of his genus Testudo. Ifitis circumscribed in terms of explicit composition, Linnaeus (1758) was referring to what later came to be known as Cryptodira Cope, 1868 (hide-necked turtles), because his species list does not include a single representative of Pleurodira Cope, 1865 (sidenecked turtles). Testudo, consequently, could be considered the senior synonym of Cryptodira. However, if Linnaeus (1758) intended to apply a name to any set of species, so long as those species (or organisms) possessed the appropriate differentiating characteristics, we must conclude that pleurodires are included in Testudo because they display the relevant character differentia (viz., corpus tetrapodum, caudatum, testa obtectum body four-legged, with a tail, covered by a shell). Last, but not least, because not a single fossil species is included in the Systema Naturae, it is not clear, if Linnaeus Testudo is to be restricted to the crown, or if it is to include any fossils from along the extinct Testudo stem. As such, how can Testudo Linnaeus, 1758 be objectively synonymized with any other ICZN-taxon name? Correspondingly, if it is unclear to what an author was referring, how can traditional name usage be inferred unambiguously? This situation contrasts to Phylogenetic Nomenclature as governed by the PhyloCode in which phylo-taxon names are explicitly defined in regard to their ancestry (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1990). Based on any given tree topology, it then follows that any two phylo-taxon names can objectively be considered synonymous if their definitions point to the same most recent common ancestor (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992). For instance, according to Gauthier (1994, p. 138), Anapsida is defined as applying to chelonians (turtles) and all other amniotes more closely related to them than they are to saurians, whereas Laurin and Reisz (1995, p. 186) defined Parareptilia as Testudines and all amniotes more closely related to them than to diapsids. As both definitions objectively point to the same clade, these names are unambiguously synonymous within the context of current phylogenetic hypotheses. Because we are only able to approximate the limits of the

4 992 JOURNAL OF PALEONTOLOGY, V. 78, NO. 5, 2004 circumscriptions to which ICZN-taxon names refer, we term all synonymies based on ICZN names subjective synonymies, and all synonymies based on phylogenetically defined names objective synonymies. These two terms should not be confounded with identical ones used by the ICZN (see ICZN 1999, Glossary). Providing subjective synonymy lists from the neontological literature is straightforward if ICZN-taxon names are equated to sets of species, as is often the case in the post Hennigian literature. That is because most extant turtles can be divided into wellknown sets of morphologically distinctive groups, allowing the composition of various ICZN-taxa to be compared objectively and without much difficulty. Nevertheless, two problems remain. First, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century zoologists were not yet aware of significant portions of extant turtle diversity, rendering it unclear if species unknown to a worker were to be referred to by an ICZN-taxon name coined by that worker. For these cases, we fixed the reference between a name and a set of species by applying their published differentia of an ICZN-taxon or at least those characters now regarded as apomorphies toward all living turtles, whether known to the original author or not, provided that they were not explicitly excluded from the group. For instance, Linnaeus (1758) did not include any representatives of Pleurodira into his single turtle genus Testudo, most likely because he was not familiar with these animals. However, we conclude that Linnaeus (1758) Testudo refers to all extant turtles, because he did not intentionally exclude Pleurodira from that group, and because all extant turtles, including all pleurodires, possess all the apomorphies listed among his morphological differentia. The second problem with assessing taxonomic composition from the early neontological literature reflects a preliminary (and now thought to be incorrect) placement of species originally known from very incomplete material. In these cases, we remove such mistaken attributions from the composition of the relevant ICZN-taxa, because we conclude that the author s true intention is not reflected by their inclusion, because these turtles actually lack the relevant differentia. For instance, the morphologically derived turtle Carettochelys insculpta Ramsay, 1887 was initially known from incomplete specimens that did not reveal its currently accepted identity as a cryptodiran turtle related to soft-shelled turtles (Trionychidae Gray, 1825). Based on the few characters known and its geographic distribution, Boulenger (1889) classified this species as a pleurodiran turtle, thus making his Pleurodira a polyphyletic group in the context of any current turtle phylogeny. Given how poorly known Carettochelys insculpta was to Boulenger (1889), however, we do not believe that he was attempting to make a bold statement by proposing this systematic assignment. Consequently, we consider the composition of his Pleurodira to be equivalent to modern applications of that name. In our experience, this second problem is minor within the neontological turtle literature, affecting only the placement of Carettochelys insculpta (as described above) and Manouria emys (Schlegel and Müller, 1844), which was originally thought to be an Asian pond turtle (Bataguridae Gray, 1870), but now is thought to be a terrestrial tortoise (Testudinidae Gray, 1825). When considering ICZN-taxa that include fossil species, producing even subjective synonymies proves more difficult because many ICZN-taxon names have been applied to a swarm of internested clades. For example, Rowe and Gauthier (1992) described how the ICZN-taxon name Mammalia has been applied to a broad range of clades originating anywhere from the Carboniferous to the late Jurassic, and differing only in the extent to which they include the phylogenetic stem of crown mammals. Among turtles, a similar swarm of clades is associated, for instance, with the turtle ICZN-taxon name Dermochelyidae (e.g., Gray, 1825; Seeley, 1880; Lydekker, 1889; Hirayama, 1994). What unifies these usages is the presumably honest intent of any given author to include only fossil stem representatives that they deem anatomically mammalian or dermochelyid in some essential feature(s). That is to say, authors generally referred fossils to Dermochelyidae because their characters were thought to be sufficiently similar to those of extant Dermochelys coriacea. Because we are most interested in documenting the names associated with crown clades, we chose from a list of available stem-associated ICZNtaxon names that name which most nearly circumscribes the crown in its referred composition. Although ICZN-taxa are often explicitly conceptualized as clades in more recent literature, the connection between a name and a clade is seldom unambiguous (e.g., Laurin, 2002). Typically, names are written next to nodes, thus implying a node-based understanding of the specified ICZN-taxon. Subsequent nomenclatural decisions often turn on characters, however, implying an apomorphy-based conceptualization. To enable a comparison of ICZN-taxon names used in the cladistic literature with names from the traditional neontological and paleontological literature, we decided to consider all names used in cladograms as referring to the node they label. Using this method of establishing synonymy, several apomorphy-based ICZN-taxa can refer to different nodes at different times. That comes as no surprise to traditional taxonomists because the circumscription of an ICZN-taxon is allowed to vary. For instance, based on a series of apomorphies, Gaffney (1975a, 1975c) assigned the name Eucryptodira to the crown node composed of all cryptodiran turtles. Soon after, several fossil taxa were discovered that also exhibited the defining apomorphies of Eucryptodira, but were situated just basal to the cryptodiran crown. Gaffney (1984) accordingly included them in Eucryptodira Gaffney, 1975c, and proposed a new apomorphy-based name Polycryptodira for the collection of species previously called Eucryptodira. Since then, Gaffney (1996) referred to Polycryptodira a new fossil stem species that possessed all these apomorphies, thus leaving crown Cryptodira one of the primary clades of turtles we presume most herpetologists want to talk about without a name once again. Character versus node versus stem: Who gets the name?. With the advent of modern methods of phylogenetic inference and explicit phylogenetic hypotheses, a discussion quickly emerged about which among a series of internested clades should receive the most widely used name (sensu de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992). Following the arguments presented in a series of articles (de Queiroz and Donoghue, 1988; de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1990, 1992, 1994; Rowe and Gauthier, 1992; Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001), we assign all widely used names to crown clades. Although we urge the interested reader to refer to the publications listed above, we will briefly summarize two major arguments that favor this approach below. First, the largest body of literature that utilizes ICZN-taxon names is neontological, not paleontological. If currently used names are converted and tied to the crown clades, then all statements made in the neontological literature remain accurate (or at least justifiable). Furthermore, neontologists will be able to continue to use the names that they are most familiar with; only paleontologists, a minority to which all three authors of this paper belong, will need to rethink parts of the nomenclature with which they are familiar (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992). In other words, we believe that most zoologists would prefer using the familiar names Testudines, Cryptodira, and Pleurodira, rather than the more obscure names Casichelydia, Polycryptodira, and Eupleurodira. All major crown clades deserve a name, and we prefer to christen them with the currently most widely used names for the sake of cognitive efficiency. Second, if commonly used names are tied to crown clades, unjustified phylogenetic inferences will be minimized (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992). As an

5 JOYCE ET AL. DEVELOPING A PROTOCOL FOR THE CONVERSION OF TAXON NAMES 993 example, according to many textbooks on turtles, all members of the Cryptodira retract their necks along a vertical plane (albeit to a variable degree, e.g., Pritchard, 1979; Ernst and Barbour, 1989; Zug et al., 2001), an observation based on living cryptodiran turtles only. Given this information, it seems plausible to infer that Kayentachelys aprix from the Lower Jurassic of Arizona, the oldest known Cryptodire (Gaffney et al., 1987, p. 289), also retracted its neck vertically. That assertion is not justified, however, because Kayentachelys aprix is currently hypothesized to be situated far outside of crown Cryptodira and to have existed long before vertical neck retraction originated. One might reasonably infer the capacity for that style of neck retraction from structural correlates, but that requires a less secure inferential chain than one derived from direct observations of living species (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001). To accommodate fossil species that are situated outside of crowns, we decided to create new, stem-based clade names. Every crown possesses a plethora of nameable stem clades (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001), however, making it once again necessary to choose one among many. We will here name only the most inclusive stems that do not overlap with the stems of any other living taxon. We term this type of stem the total group of Jefferies (1979) a panstem clade (pan whole, entire) or simply panstem. Following Gauthier and de Queiroz (2001), panstems will be formed by addition of the prefix pan- to crown-name roots; hence Testudinidae for crown tortoises and Pantestudinidae for panstem tortoises. Cognitive efficiency is thereby increased in two ways. First, merely by adding the prefix pan- to any crown name, any zoologists seeing such a construction would know instantly that the name refers to a panstem, and not to any other stem or node. Second, adding only pan- to crown names will effectively reduce by half the number of different names with which anyone will have to contend. In some cases, this practice requires rejecting perfectly good ICZN-taxon names defined by previous authors. Cryptodiromorpha Lee, 1995 is one such example because Pancryptodira would replace it under this convention, even though these names are plainly synonymous, with the former name having publication priority over the latter. Although some may disagree with this approach, we feel confident in overriding priority because the benefits to future generations of zoologists far outweigh the disadvantages created from disrupting the connection with the current literature (it is admittedly difficult to credit priority in the absence of a formal starting date for the PhyloCode). Fortunately, within turtles, this conflict exists only with three panstems, and the names proposed for them have not been used since they were proposed (see Panpleurodira, Pancryptodira, and Pancheloniidae below), thus making it possible to replace them without any true disruption of connection to the current literature. As an example, we propose that the crown clade arising from the most recent common ancestor of all living terrestrial tortoises be referred to as Testudinidae. All fossil species that are situated along the phylogenetic stem of Testudinidae should be included in the more inclusive clade called Pantestudinidae. As informal equivalents, we refer all members of Testudinidae as testudinids, and all members of Pantestudinidae as pantestudinids. Finally, should the term prove useful, one might wish to refer to all representatives of the extinct and paraphyletic stem of testudinids as stem-testudinids. However, the latter has no formal phylo-taxonomic status and ought not to be italicized like formal phylogenetic names (see below). Choice of name and functional homonyms. The formal clade names proposed here were selected from the list of subjective and objective synonyms discussed above. No single criterion of name choice, however, would ensure satisfying results every time, which is to minimize disruption of current usage (PhyloCode, 2003, Recommendation 10a). We therefore established a hierarchy of criteria. Generally, our first criterion of choice was not priority, but current common usage (i.e., current common clade/name associations based on composition). This somewhat unconventional method was necessary because our literature searches indicated that almost no single phylo-taxon is currently addressed by its original name. For instance, under strict priority, Cryptopodi Latreille, 1825, not Testudinoidea Fitzinger, 1826, should be considered the correct name for the clade composed of all pond turtles and terrestrial tortoises. The resurrection of a multitude of largely unfamiliar names serves little purpose beyond strict adherence to priority, and at too steep a cost, if the overarching goal is to conserve the associations between names and phylo-taxa used in the current literature. However, whereas rules of priority provide a precise framework for choosing names, the term common usage naturally invites ambiguity. We consider a name commonly used if a clear majority of systematists applied it during the last 25 years to the same phylo-taxon. Some systematists designated apomorphy/clade associations (e.g., Gaffney, 1975a, 1975c), so the pool of potential synonyms was reduced arbitrarily to phylotaxa having that apomorphy. Finally, common usage was sometimes rejected when it came into conflict with our desire to reserve widely used names for crown clades. Only in rare circumstances did we ignore these rules, usually to favor a more recognizable name to avoid confusion among similarly spelled clade names. The introduction of cladistic methods resulted in the recognition of a plethora of new clades that may warrant their own names. All need not be given formal names a cladogram or similar device often will serve but if biologists want to talk about them, they ought to be able to name them (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992). Fueled by the traditions growing from the rules and recommendations of the ICZN (1999), it is common practice to form new names by slightly altering well-established genus-group names by the addition of ever so slightly altered suffixes. Bour and Dubois (1985), for example, provide a framework for forming up to 13 new ICZN-taxon names within the family group alone. The resulting names often cannot be easily distinguished, thus becoming functionally homonymous, owing to the limited ability of humans to easily distinguish among them by sound alone. Drastic examples among turtles, extracted from the primary literature, include the derivates of Testudo Linnaeus, 1758 (Testudo, Testudia, Testudinata, Testudines, Testudininei, Testudininae, Testudinina, Testudinini, Testudinidi, Testudinidae, Testudinoidae, Testudinoidea, Testudinoides) or the derivates of Chelonia Brongniart, 1800b and Cuvier, 1800 (Chelonia, Cheloniana, Chelone, Chelonii, Chelonides, Chelonae, Chelonea, Cheloniadae, Chelonidae, Cheloninae, Cheloniae, Cheloniinae, Cheloniidae, Cheloniidea, Cheloniida, Chelonida, Chelonidi, Chelonina, Chelonini, Chelonioidea, Chelonioidae). If ease of name recognition is a desirable goal of nomenclature, we conclude that too many similarly spelled names should be avoided. In rare instances, we decide to overrule both common usage and priority and assign clades with significantly different names. Detailed explanations for all decisions are presented in the discussion sections following each named clade. The vast majority of living turtles can comfortably be grouped into inclusive clades, but four exceptions exist: Carettochelys insculpta, Dermochelys coriacea, Dermatemys mawii, and Platysternon megacephalum. Strictly speaking, these four species, traditionally placed in their own monotypic Linnaean families, are just some among many living species of turtles and consequently should receive no special nomenclatural attention. However, with the possible exception of Platysternon megacephalum, these species have fine fossil records that connect them to other living

6 994 JOURNAL OF PALEONTOLOGY, V. 78, NO. 5, 2004 turtles via long stem-lineages that typically extend into the Cretaceous. We consequently feel it desirable to create stem-based clade names for these single species, but we could find no protocols for how to define panstems based on single species (lineage segments sensu de Queiroz, 1998, 1999). Among many possibilities, we decided to form new panstem names by combining current Linnaean generic names with the prefix pan (to automate the process of naming panstems). When possible, we then referred the traditional family names to less inclusive clades whose composition closely resembles the current name application. No clade inherently possesses a true name, and phylogenetic nomenclature as governed by the PhyloCode (2003) is a process of assigning somewhat arbitrary words to a non-arbitrary meaning. As such, none of the names that we reject are wrong, nor is this system right. Instead, names become more or less informative, depending on the number of people who use them to convey the same meaning. Due to the vast array of literature considered in this review, we are confident that we found all relevant subjective synonyms, and that our putative names-to-clade associations have a reasonable connection to traditional usage as inferred herein. In order to minimize ambiguity, all clade names are clearly defined and the logic invoked in our decision-making process is explained in each case. If future research indicates an oversight on our part, we gladly welcome the clarification. However, because all names were chosen based on our subjective sense of synonymy (see above), we trust that future researchers who disagree will help maintain stability by avoiding the temptation to rename them. Authorship. The purpose of citing references in scientific work is to introduce the reader to a wider literature, to acknowledge those who developed an innovative idea, and, most importantly for nomenclatural purposes, to refer the reader to a specific article that clarifies the meaning of a given name. According to the rules of the PhyloCode (2003, Article 19.1), a phylo-taxon name is attributed to the author of its protologue, that is, the defining formula of that phylo-taxon name (Phylo- Code, 2003, Glossary). This convention is sensible, as it allows the efficient retrieval of the definition of any given phylo-taxon name. The PhyloCode (2003, Article 20.1) also states that [i]f the author of a converted name is cited, the author of the preexisting name on which it is based must also be cited. Unfortunately, no guidelines are provided by the PhyloCode (2003) as to which among a number of possible candidate authors should be cited. Following the spirit of the PhyloCode (2003), up to three people may justifiably be associated within any given ICZN-taxon name: the author who first recognized a phylo-taxon (i.e., a natural or monophyletic group); the author who developed a connection between particular characters (apomorphies) and a particular name; and the author who first applied a name to a certain phylo-taxon. Ideally, all three of these authors are the same person, but that is rarely the case. For instance, the first to recognize that all pond turtles and terrestrial tortoises form a natural group was Latreille (1825), who called them Cryptopodi. The most commonly used name for this group today, Testudinoidea, was soon after coined by Fitzinger (1826), who applied this name to terrestrial tortoises only. It was not until Baur (1893) that Testudinoidea was actually referred to Latreille s (1825) group comprised of pond turtles and terrestrial tortoises. Which of these three authors, then, deserves the credit and should therefore be cited after Testudinoidea when this name is formally converted to its current clade application using the PhyloCode? The rules and recommendations of the ICZN (1999) add an additional level of complexity by providing rules that may favor yet another author. In particular, the ICZN (1999, Article 50) maintains that credit be given to the author who first established an ICZN-taxon regardless of the current circumscription of the group to which the ICZN-taxon name refers. More importantly, the ICZN (1999, Articles 36.1, 43.1) dictates that the first author of a family or genus group name be given credit for all other family or genus group names that contain the same type genus or type species, respectively. For instance, following these ICZN rules, Bour and Dubois (1985) correctly identified Batsch (1788) as the author of the superfamily Testudinoidea (the group of turtles discussed above that is currently circumscribed to contain all pond turtles and terrestrial tortoises), because Batsch (1788) was the first to coin a family level ICZN-taxon containing the type species Testudo graeca. In conclusion, depending on the rationale used, four different authors may reasonably be associated with the converted clade name Testudinoidea: Batsch (1788, the author who first coined the family group ICZN-taxon that contains Testudo graeca); Latreille (1825, the author who recognize the clade comprised of pond turtles and tortoises); Fitzinger (1826, the author to coin the name Testudinoidea); and Baur (1893, the author to first applied the currently accepted circumscription to the ICZN-taxon Testudinoidea). When reviewing current taxonomies above the family group level, it became clear that most workers use a mosaic of criteria when choosing authors for ICZN-taxon names, because the ICZN (1999) does not provide any rules for these ranks. For instance, extending the recommendations of the ICZN (1999) to higherranked ICZN-taxa, Bour and Dubois (1985) gave Brongniart (1800a) credit for assigning all turtles to the ordinal name Chelonii, because he was the first to coin a name for turtles at the ordinal level (based on categorical ranks in the Linnaean tradition). However, they nevertheless credited Gaffney (1975a, 1975c) for naming the suborder Casichelydia, although Gaffney was not the first to name a turtle suborder that contained the cryptodiran type species Testudo graeca or Chelonia mydas (e.g., Mayer, 1849; Agassiz, 1857; Gray, 1870), nor the first to name an order group taxon that contains the type Testudo graeca. Finally, Bour and Dubois (1985) credited Cope (1868) for the infraorder Pleurodira, even though he did not assign that name to the infraorder nor discover that clade. In conclusion, no single method is currently used when crediting an author with a name, admittedly because no criterion is mandated by the ICZN. This demonstrates primarily that there is no universal sense of authorship that one could follow when implementing the PhyloCode rule that authorship be granted the author of a converted name (PhyloCode, 2003, Article 20.1). One of the major objectives of this paper is to document comprehensively the history of the discovery and naming of each clade. Ideally, all three non-rank-based authors (i.e., the author of the phylo-taxon, author of the name, and the author who first assigned a name to a phylo-taxon) should be listed after every name. However, because ICZN-taxon names cannot be objectively synonymized with the clades defined herein (see above), we conclude that the only author that can be determined objectively is the author of a name, however that name may have been conceived originally. We consequently cite only the actual author of the name directly after each phylo-taxon name but credit all other contributors to the meaning of those phylo-taxon names in the discussion section following the definition of each phylo-taxon name. Unfortunately, even though this procedure can be implemented objectively, we must conclude that this type of authorship is problematic, given that the author who coined a given ICZNname typically has only the most tenuous connection to the clade being named. Choice of crown and stem clades to be named. With an estimated 289 turtle species alive today (see Appendices), a fully bifurcated tree could require at least 865 node- and stem-based names {n [(number of terminals * 3) 2]}. For instance, if fully

7 JOYCE ET AL. DEVELOPING A PROTOCOL FOR THE CONVERSION OF TAXON NAMES 995 bifurcated, the approximately 25 species of Kinosternidae (American mud and musk turtles) form 24 crown clades, and each of these crown clades possesses potentially countless node and apomorphy-based clades, as well as stem clades relative to any other living kinosternid, or to any other turtle, or living being, not to mention any extinct species. However, like so many other groups of organisms, extant turtles form a number of easily recognizable, morphologically discrete clades resulting from long time-spans of separate evolution, the sequential accumulation of diagnostic characters, and the extinction of intermediate forms. Once discovered by naturalists, these groups have always received formal names names that have become the lingua franca of turtle research and we will continue to honor that tradition, not least because we too would like to communicate about these clades. Interestingly, although these groups are easily distinguishable from one another and are most certainly monophyletic, most of them have unresolved internal relationships. One of the classic arguments against defining names phylogenetically is the risk that, over time, the composition associated with a name may change significantly due to changes in tree topology (see Benton, 2000, and references therein). Consider the following hypothetical example. According to some cladograms (e.g., Hirayama, 1985), it is possible to define a node-based version of crown Bataguridae (Asian pond turtles) as the clade arising from the most recent common ancestor of Batagur baska and Geoemyda spengleri and correctly point to a group of turtles that has been recognized for almost 50 years (Fig. 2.1). However, if this definition is applied to the more recent hypotheses proposed by McCord et al. (2000), Rhinoclemmys is excluded from Bataguridae, thus changing the traditionally accepted composition associated with the name (Fig. 2.2). If an idea about a particular composition (or characters) is important to the author of a phylo-taxon name, then that clade s name should be defined explicitly with respect to those included species (or apomorphies). Similarly, if the author intends to exclude some species but include others, all species that are considered essential (internal specifiers of the PhyloCode, 2003, Article 11), or not permissible (external specifiers of the PhyloCode, 2003, Article 11), to the phylo-taxon name must be listed in the definition. For cases in which ideas about composition are paramount, space limitations may still make it difficult to list all included species in a phylogenetic definition, at least in highly speciose clades (e.g., Eucaryota). As an alternative, it is sufficient to list two or three exemplars, and then refer to the literature where the remaining species are listed (e.g., Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001). This type of definition is especially useful for defining the names of node-based phylo-taxa with uncertain internal relationships; that is to say, name application would be fixed by composition regardless of ideas regarding ingroup relationships. As our understanding of the internal relationships of many turtle groups will doubtless change in the future, we consequently define all crown clades with respect to their total extant composition, and thus buffering them against that eventuality. Furthermore, as described above, we chose among the plethora of potentially nameable stem-groups only the most inclusive stem group that does not include the closest living turtle (or other amniote), and refer to them as panstem clades, or simply as panstems. CONCLUSIONS Turtles provide an ideal test case to illustrate the transition from a rank-based nomenclatural system to a phylogenetic system based on defined clade names, while trying to maintain a clear connection to the traditional literature by applying widely used names to those clades that most closely approximate the original set of species (or characters) associated with those names. Most FIGURE 2 Undesirable modification of taxon composition due to changing phylogenetic hypotheses. According the phylogenetic hypothesis proposed by Hirayama (1985), 1, it is possible to define the taxon Bataguridae as the clade originating from the last common ancestor of Batagur baska and Geoemyda spengleri and successfully refer to all living taxa traditionally accorded to this name. If this definition is applied to the phylogenetic hypothesis furnished by McCord et al. (2000), 2, Rhinoclemmys rubida is removed from Bataguridae, thus altering the composition possibly intended by the original author. For clarity, taxon sampling is greatly reduced in both cladograms. groups of turtles that closely correspond to currently well-supported clades were named at least once by the 1830s (Gaffney, 1984). Turtles thus provide a long and complex nomenclatural and taxonomic history, enabling us to discover diverse problems that might hinder a smooth transition between systems while at the same time illuminating several misconceptions regarding traditional nomenclatural practices. A primary difficulty associated with a transition intent on conserving names used in traditional taxonomic literature is that it is seldom clear from most taxonomic works precisely which group of organisms a ICZN-taxon name was referring to (i.e., the limits of the circumscription of a ICZN-taxon are often vague), primarily because authors seldom explained exactly how they conceptualized their ICZN-taxa (Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001). Did they intend a specific set of species? A specific set of characters?